For economic, domestic, and foreign policy issues, be sure to click the button at the bottom that reads, "Show 4 more foreign policy questions" or the like. The choose another stance button will bring you up to a list of better defined stances. Post your results here!

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

The Green Party is the only party in the U.S. that seems alright to me, mostly because they're not big enough (like the LP) to have real national support (and thus no chance of taking over the federal or State governments) and their principles are centered on localism, not government control.

The Green Party is the only party in the U.S. that seems alright to me, mostly because they're not big enough (like the LP) to have real national support (and thus no chance of taking over the federal or State governments) and their principles are centered on localism, not government control.

How do the political pledges of "The right to a job at a living wage" or "The transition to a sustainable, green economy" indicate a lack of government control. It sounds like government control over wages, employment, and alternative fuels.

The Green Party is the only party in the U.S. that seems alright to me, mostly because they're not big enough (like the LP) to have real national support (and thus no chance of taking over the federal or State governments) and their principles are centered on localism, not government control.

How do the political pledges of "The right to a job at a living wage" or "The transition to a sustainable, green economy" indicate a lack of government control. It sounds like government control over wages, employment, and alternative fuels.

The Green Party is the only party in the U.S. that seems alright to me, mostly because they're not big enough (like the LP) to have real national support (and thus no chance of taking over the federal or State governments) and their principles are centered on localism, not government control.

How do the political pledges of "The right to a job at a living wage" or "The transition to a sustainable, green economy" indicate a lack of government control. It sounds like government control over wages, employment, and alternative fuels.

...or communal and localist solutions to the problems of poverty and other social problems in existence. When we say government control we mostly refer to Federal or state governments. The problem with this though is (A) the problem with standardization in the face of varying conditions in different areas, (B) the fact that larger authorities are generally more centralized and hierarchal, (C) the lack of relevant feedback mechanisms in such large institutions, etc. Local and community solutions are thus obviously favorable to government solutions. The Green Party and Greens support localism as opposed to governmental meddling in people's lives.

Now decentralist and localist means are distinct from the State or government and a lot closer to real anarchy The point you're making is that these things imply government control which really implies Federal or state control. But the whole point of the Green party (and the Greens in general) is opposition to top-down and one size fits all policy. So what you're doing is basically extrapolating a means (government control) based on an end (living wage, green economy, etc.) which you can't really do especially considering Green Party principles in regards to the means by which they've stated they support in reaching their goals.

The Green Party is the only party in the U.S. that seems alright to me, mostly because they're not big enough (like the LP) to have real national support (and thus no chance of taking over the federal or State governments) and their principles are centered on localism, not government control.

How do the political pledges of "The right to a job at a living wage" or "The transition to a sustainable, green economy" indicate a lack of government control. It sounds like government control over wages, employment, and alternative fuels.

...or communal and localist solutions to the problems of poverty and other social problems in existence. When we say government control we mostly refer to Federal or state governments. The problem with this though is (A) the problem with standardization in the face of varying conditions in different areas, (B) the fact that larger authorities are generally more centralized and hierarchal, (C) the lack of relevant feedback mechanisms in such large institutions, etc. Local and community solutions are thus obviously favorable to government solutions. The Green Party and Greens support localism as opposed to governmental meddling in people's lives.

Now decentralist and localist means are distinct from the State or government and a lot closer to real anarchy The point you're making is that these things imply government control which really implies Federal or state control. But the whole point of the Green party (and the Greens in general) is opposition to top-down and one size fits all policy. So what you're doing is basically extrapolating a means (government control) based on an end (living wage, green economy, etc.) which you can't really do especially considering Green Party principles in regards to the means by which they've stated they support in reaching their goals.

So your telling me if a Green Party member got elected as president then he wouldn't try to use the federal government to implement "green economy" or to create a "living wage"? Come on. These are policies that are more state or federally based. If you start localized, how successful would these policies be? No corporation would start a business in a town with a higher minimum wage, when it can just go to the the town right over. Or how successful can implementing green economy be when there's no way a town can raise enough funds to develop the infrastructure.

Ralph Nader, a green partier, did quite a bit in Washington to try to get the federal government to do what he wanted them to do.

...or communal and localist solutions to the problems of poverty and other social problems in existence. When we say government control we mostly refer to Federal or state governments. The problem with this though is (A) the problem with standardization in the face of varying conditions in different areas, (B) the fact that larger authorities are generally more centralized and hierarchal, (C) the lack of relevant feedback mechanisms in such large institutions, etc. Local and community solutions are thus obviously favorable to government solutions. The Green Party and Greens support localism as opposed to governmental meddling in people's lives.

Now decentralist and localist means are distinct from the State or government and a lot closer to real anarchy The point you're making is that these things imply government control which really implies Federal or state control. But the whole point of the Green party (and the Greens in general) is opposition to top-down and one size fits all policy. So what you're doing is basically extrapolating a means (government control) based on an end (living wage, green economy, etc.) which you can't really do especially considering Green Party principles in regards to the means by which they've stated they support in reaching their goals.

So your telling me if a Green Party member got elected as president then he wouldn't try to use the federal government to implement "green economy" or to create a "living wage"? Come on.

I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, I'm saying the professed principles of the Green Party and Greens in general is to prefer decentralized solutions and local control over problems being faced. Federal and state power isn't their primary interest as it is with major parties.

These are policies that are more state or federally based. If you start localized, how successful would these policies be? No corporation would start a business in a town with a higher minimum wage, when it can just go to the the town right over. Or how successful can implementing green economy be when there's no way a town can raise enough funds to develop the infrastructure. And I'm not really sure what your point was regarding infrastructure and a green economy. Elaboration?

You're arguing from within the framework of capitalism. These kinds of policies are more akin to libertarian socialism or municipalism. So to say "oh corporations can't afford that" is a moot point in regards to what I'm saying.

Ralph Nader, a green partier, did quite a bit in Washington to try to get the federal government to do what he wanted them to do.

I know but Green principles themselves support decentralized and local control and solutions. Nader's Federal lobbying and the like were more progressive and liberal then they were Green.

...or communal and localist solutions to the problems of poverty and other social problems in existence. When we say government control we mostly refer to Federal or state governments. The problem with this though is (A) the problem with standardization in the face of varying conditions in different areas, (B) the fact that larger authorities are generally more centralized and hierarchal, (C) the lack of relevant feedback mechanisms in such large institutions, etc. Local and community solutions are thus obviously favorable to government solutions. The Green Party and Greens support localism as opposed to governmental meddling in people's lives.

Now decentralist and localist means are distinct from the State or government and a lot closer to real anarchy The point you're making is that these things imply government control which really implies Federal or state control. But the whole point of the Green party (and the Greens in general) is opposition to top-down and one size fits all policy. So what you're doing is basically extrapolating a means (government control) based on an end (living wage, green economy, etc.) which you can't really do especially considering Green Party principles in regards to the means by which they've stated they support in reaching their goals.

So your telling me if a Green Party member got elected as president then he wouldn't try to use the federal government to implement "green economy" or to create a "living wage"? Come on.

I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, I'm saying the professed principles of the Green Party and Greens in general is to prefer decentralized solutions and local control over problems being faced. Federal and state power isn't their primary interest as it is with major parties.

These are policies that are more state or federally based. If you start localized, how successful would these policies be? No corporation would start a business in a town with a higher minimum wage, when it can just go to the the town right over. Or how successful can implementing green economy be when there's no way a town can raise enough funds to develop the infrastructure. And I'm not really sure what your point was regarding infrastructure and a green economy. Elaboration?

You're arguing from within the framework of capitalism. These kinds of policies are more akin to libertarian socialism or municipalism. So to say "oh corporations can't afford that" is a moot point in regards to what I'm saying.

Ralph Nader, a green partier, did quite a bit in Washington to try to get the federal government to do what he wanted them to do.

I know but Green principles themselves support decentralized and local control and solutions. Nader's Federal lobbying and the like were more progressive and liberal then they were Green.

Sounds like a lot of what your saying is just the "No true scotsman fallacy".

In terms of me thinking in a "capitalism framework", opportunity costs, scarcity and trade (exchanges) exist under all systems. They are not just "capitalism framework". They just exist, like gravity.

I know but Green principles themselves support decentralized and local control and solutions. Nader's Federal lobbying and the like were more progressive and liberal then they were Green.

Sounds like a lot of what your saying is just the "No true scotsman fallacy".

Not really. Green principles are pretty clear so it's pretty easy to distinguish abiding and not abiding by them. That's an annoying part of defending principle though. It gets too intertwined in history. For instance, I can say the Soviet Union from its very conception was founded on non-Marxist principles and some dude will accuse me of the no true scotsman. But the fact is the principles are so clear we can easily analyze alleged examples of them being put into place. Lenin trying to establish communism in a country who's economic conditions don't represent a fully developed capitalist system is antithetical to Marxist principles in the same way that Nader lobbying for Federal policies goes against clearly articulated Green principles.

In terms of me thinking in a "capitalism framework", opportunity costs, scarcity and trade (exchanges) exist under all systems. They are not just "capitalism framework". They just exist, like gravity.

Not exactly. That's true in a sense but not in the sense that you're examples pointed to like minimum wage. In a capitalist system we have wealth created for profit so the wage of a worker will be contingent (for the most part) on their productivity in regards to profit. This is because wealth isn't created in conjunction with other principles. Under something like libertarian socialism though we would have a highly decentralized network of syndicalist companies producing what the community needs.

Obviously planned production is open to the whole calculation problem but that's where the decentralism comes in. It's all about finding a balance between something like the economy of an entire nation-state where planned production is impossible and something like a small communal society where it is.

At 7/15/2012 11:18:52 PM, Frederick53 wrote:Come to think of it, I don't think a Democratic or Republican candidate has ever been elected who wasn't more authoritarian than libertarian. An this election's candidates are no exception.

At 7/15/2012 11:18:52 PM, Frederick53 wrote:Come to think of it, I don't think a Democratic or Republican candidate has ever been elected who wasn't more authoritarian than libertarian. An this election's candidates are no exception.

I know but Green principles themselves support decentralized and local control and solutions. Nader's Federal lobbying and the like were more progressive and liberal then they were Green.

Sounds like a lot of what your saying is just the "No true scotsman fallacy".

Not really. Green principles are pretty clear so it's pretty easy to distinguish abiding and not abiding by them. That's an annoying part of defending principle though. It gets too intertwined in history. For instance, I can say the Soviet Union from its very conception was founded on non-Marxist principles and some dude will accuse me of the no true scotsman. But the fact is the principles are so clear we can easily analyze alleged examples of them being put into place. Lenin trying to establish communism in a country who's economic conditions don't represent a fully developed capitalist system is antithetical to Marxist principles in the same way that Nader lobbying for Federal policies goes against clearly articulated Green principles.

It makes more sense to judge a party based on the actions of the individuals in it rather than the policies of it. Because based on that logic then the Republicans really are for limited government.

In terms of me thinking in a "capitalism framework", opportunity costs, scarcity and trade (exchanges) exist under all systems. They are not just "capitalism framework". They just exist, like gravity.

Not exactly. That's true in a sense but not in the sense that you're examples pointed to like minimum wage. In a capitalist system we have wealth created

for profit so the wage of a worker will be contingent (for the most part) on their productivity in regards to profit. This is because wealth isn't created in conjunction with other principles. Under something like libertarian socialism though we would have a highly decentralized network of syndicalist companies producing what the community needs.

Obviously planned production is open to the whole calculation problem but that's where the decentralism comes in. It's all about finding a balance between something like the economy of an entire nation-state where planned production is impossible and something like a small communal society where it is.

I honestly have no idea how libertarian socialism works. I have many questions on what you just said. What literature do you have on it?

At 7/15/2012 11:18:52 PM, Frederick53 wrote:Come to think of it, I don't think a Democratic or Republican candidate has ever been elected who wasn't more authoritarian than libertarian. An this election's candidates are no exception.

I am a little confused here. Did you just call libertarian candidates more authoritarian than Republican or Democratic candidates?

At 7/15/2012 11:18:52 PM, Frederick53 wrote:Come to think of it, I don't think a Democratic or Republican candidate has ever been elected who wasn't more authoritarian than libertarian. An this election's candidates are no exception.

Not really. Green principles are pretty clear so it's pretty easy to distinguish abiding and not abiding by them. That's an annoying part of defending principle though. It gets too intertwined in history. For instance, I can say the Soviet Union from its very conception was founded on non-Marxist principles and some dude will accuse me of the no true scotsman. But the fact is the principles are so clear we can easily analyze alleged examples of them being put into place. Lenin trying to establish communism in a country who's economic conditions don't represent a fully developed capitalist system is antithetical to Marxist principles in the same way that Nader lobbying for Federal policies goes against clearly articulated Green principles.

It makes more sense to judge a party based on the actions of the individuals in it rather than the policies of it. Because based on that logic then the Republicans really are for limited government.

I'm not talking about judging individuals who claim to observe principles. I'm referring to the principles themselves. Like when I said one of the principles of the Green Party is decentralism and you pointed to Nader's work lobbying to the Federal Government. Yeah that happened but it says nothing about the soundness of the actual Green principles since Nader wasn't actually following them.

Not exactly. That's true in a sense but not in the sense that you're examples pointed to like minimum wage. In a capitalist system we have wealth created for profit so the wage of a worker will be contingent (for the most part) on their productivity in regards to profit. This is because wealth isn't created in conjunction with other principles. Under something like libertarian socialism though we would have a highly decentralized network of syndicalist companies producing what the community needs.

Obviously planned production is open to the whole calculation problem but that's where the decentralism comes in. It's all about finding a balance between something like the economy of an entire nation-state where planned production is impossible and something like a small communal society where it is.

I honestly have no idea how libertarian socialism works. I have many questions on what you just said. What literature do you have on it?

Pretty much anything by Murray Bookchin. Most of his stuff can be found here: (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...) "Thoughts on Libertarian Municpalism" and "Libertarian Muncipalism: An Overview" are pretty informative articles from him. I'll look to see if I can find anything else for you to work with.

Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 7/15/2012 11:18:52 PM, Frederick53 wrote:Come to think of it, I don't think a Democratic or Republican candidate has ever been elected who wasn't more authoritarian than libertarian. An this election's candidates are no exception.

I am a little confused here. Did you just call libertarian candidates more authoritarian than Republican or Democratic candidates?

I think he meant all Democrat and Republican presidents leaned more towards the authoritarian end of the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13